Hosta

by | Mar 16, 2018 | Hosta

How Can We Help?
You are here:
< Back
< November 10 November 12 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Those who want to keep the article do not point to any sources that would satisfy our requirements. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dar Al Sharq Group

Dar Al Sharq Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article. If independent coverage of the corporation (as opposed to individual newspapers) is considered sufficiently in-depth to meet WP:NCORP, then I suggest that WP:TNT would apply. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is a huge amount of coverage in Arabic. This is a large company which seems to have a political slant and controls multiple international media outlets. There is a lot that could be done with this article and the promotional language is fairly limited, so WP:TNT would be overkill in my opinion. Chagropango (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Chagropango. Which articles do you believe support that WP:NCORP is met? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild keep could be a good stub. A 4000 employee company with $14B revenue could be notable, however the sources right now are not good. TNT is good, but I lean towards making it a small stub. I think local Arab-speaking wikipedians would be helpful here. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am unable to locate any references which meet (or even come close to) NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. The Keep !votes are not based on any of our guidelines. Chagropango was invited to list articles that met NCORP (nearly two weeks ago) to support their !vote and there has been silence since. 多少战场龙 noted the topic "could be notable" but also admitted the "sources right now are not good" - over a week later, there have been no improvements and no new sources have appeared. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 12:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pratik Gauri

AfDs for this article:
Pratik Gauri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous AfD had four !votes, two of which were socks. Renominating in hopes of more rigorous process. Original deletion rationale was 'Seems to do not meet WP:GNG.'. Girth Summit (blether) 21:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Girth Summit (blether) 21:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Delhi. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (thanks for renominating). The sourcing here appears to be an unholy trinity of interviews, unreliable sources, and sponsored content, none of which moves the needle in terms of the GNG. My search didn't find much else of interest, and no alternatives to deletion come to mind. I'm glad to take a look at any particular sources that people think might be meritorious, but as it stands I'm not convinced Gauri is notable at this time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was invited to participate in discussion by creator. I stand by my previous opinion about the article, because nothing has been changed. He has significant coverage in national press in Hindi and English.  See below. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. The mentioned links only discuss the title of the article significantly, apart from the company. Passes WP:SIGCOV fo General notability guideline. Other lonks, focus on him as the founder of the company. In the awards section of article, several sources are mentioned. This link is not in the article [8] that said Pratik Gauri awarded Creative Entrepreneur Of The Year 2020 - Startup by Entrepreneur India. Based on these reasons, I believe that subject passes WP:GNG.황83보 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of these sources: [9] has no byline, is in large part an interview, and reads like a puff piece ("this Indian influence entrepreneur is making the world a better place and trying to take India places"); [10] lacks a byline, is of uncertain reliability per WP:NPPSG, and is mostly an interview; [11] is almost word-for-word identical to the first source; [12] is of dubious reliability per WP:NPPSG and lacks in-depth non-interview content; [13] has no byline and lacks independent analysis (mostly just quotes from his LinkedIn, items from his résumé, "is already being talked about", etc.); [14] is word-for-word identical to this article about a different person in places, suggesting that both are copied from press releases; [15] is an (odd) interview and or/blog; and [16] contains neither a byline nor independent analysis. None of these sources seem to provide the in-depth and genuinely independent reliable-source coverage that the GNG requires, and indeed many of them read like sponsored content (see Paid news in India). Still not convinced that he's notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually not convinced by the reasons presented by you. sources must be reliable, independent, secondry and signigicantly to be acceptable. I check out these conditions and have nothing to do with being “byline” or not. In some of sources your reason is being interview. As you know, along with independent secondary sources, interviews are also helpful for verifiability and demonstration of notability. Based on the page you introduced ( Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide) which has generally listed reliable sources of English language not national language, I found multiple sources that were mentioned as relaible sources [17] from The Statesman (India), [18] from Mint (newspaper), 3 sources featuring the Best Tech Start-up of the Year in the Blockchain domain award by Entrepreneur Awards 2022 [19] from Business Standard and [20] from ThePrint and [21] from The Financial Express (India), 4 times mentioned as the CEO of company [22] on Mint (newspaper) and 7 times mentioned for same position [23] on The Financial Express (India) , [24] from Business Line and other sources from Business Standard and ect. The sources that I have introduced are acceptable/reliable sources from the websites that have been listed on Wikipedia:NPPSG. Other sources all listed as No consensus, generally are not realible but some of them are and some are not. It should be check out for each link. such as [25] and [26] from The Economic Times, [27] from NDTV and many other sources listed as No consensus in Wikipedia:NPPSG. I did not mentioned any unreliable sources, according to Wikipedia:NPPSG. A you see, we only checked out English sources. whereas, due to his nationality, Hindi sources must be checked that I presented some of reliable of them. Please also review sources provided in last AFD and article that are the indication of WP:SIGCOV. Passes WP:GNG.황83보 (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @4meter4: In addition to the sources that are in the article, new sources were mentioned in this Afd and last Afd, but Extraordinary Writ claimed that they do not meet the conditions of RS. Is it possible for you to review the links and leave your comment?황83보 (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me, but I am having difficulty evaluating many of the sources due to the language barrier. I am going to sit this one out. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: Is it possible for you to review above discussion regarding my vote? I listed English sources.황83보 (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage in reliable, secondary sources to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 02:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At first, I thought that maybe the person has no notability apart from his company, but sources provided by ″황83보″ show that the person was featured in Indian and English RS significantly that I did not list them in order not to be too long and please read above comments. He was awarded creative Entrepreneur Of The Year 2020, covered by multiple sources and as a founder and president of a startup listed on List of unicorn startup companies. Based on all that has been said, I think he passes notability criteria. Alimovvarsu (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a WP:GNG pass, [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36].Yandeńo (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional article, coverage is largely focussed on the blockchain company rather than the individual. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I concur with the sources analysis of 황83보, meets WP:GNG.Antonyvlas (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is enough media coverage in article and above to make this notable.AndrewYuke (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer This AfD was closed as keep shortly before the !votes of several new socks were blocked. I have reopened it, and struck their !votes. (I do not consider myself involved here, despite the fact that I started the discussion - it was purely a procedural renomination because the last discussion suffered from exactly this same sort of socky disruption, and I used the original nominator's rationale. I have not myself read the article or the sources, and have no opinion on whether it should be deleted or not.) Girth Summit (blether) 08:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-script - I've established that the article's author, and the account 황83보, are also socks, or possibly MEAT. There's more info at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elbatli. Girth Summit (blether) 12:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of enterprise search vendors

List of enterprise search vendors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. I'd say it should just be merged into enterprise search, but it's unclear why we'd need a list of vendors with no sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it fails WP:NLIST. But please do not merge it back into enterprise search. It used to be there -- you can compare [37] to [38] to see why I removed it back in 2008. This list page may be crap, but at least it quarantined the crap. If we're going to remove it, let's do so and not just move it back to where it started. Meanwhile, the enterprise search entry is pretty awful already. Not clear whether we should try to save it or delete it too. Though I'd vote for saving it since it's a legitimate and notable concept that deserves a high-quality entry. Dtunkelang (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed a lot of material from the enterprise search entry in the hopes of at least leaving something there that conforms to WP norms. Dtunkelang (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete specialist directory cruft and articles-as-categories Dronebogus (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not sure this would be appropriate as a category, even. We're not Gartner. FalconK (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz Read! Talk! 09:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saude Abdullahi-Aliyu

Saude Abdullahi-Aliyu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same problems as Ahmed Abdullahi Aliyu Abdurrahim Sumaila. The article contains many, many claims to notability but none of them seem to pass verification. Searches of her name yield only Wikipedia mirrors. I can find no evidence that "Saude Abdullahi-Aliyu" is covered in any of the sources cited and many of the sources seem to be fictitious. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Zaynab1418 (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz Read! Talk! 09:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Sumaila

Ahmed Sumaila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same issues as Ahmed Abdullahi Aliyu Abdurrahim Sumaila. Searches of "Ahmed Sumaila" yield nothing of note yet the claims in the article are so extraordinary that this person ought to be a household name, surely. The sources used are identical to those used in all of the other Sumaila vanity articles that have been created in the past year or so and the article content is nearly identical too. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. The page Hausa–Fulani Arabs is also full of hoax material and hasn’t been AfD’d yet. Zaynab1418 (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 13:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dani León Roca

Dani León Roca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable ski mountaineer. Did a before search, and brought up no third party sources to establish notability, and has no medal record. Doesn't meet GNG or WP:SPORTSBASIC. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 19:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dam (band)

Dam (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evident notability/SIGCOV. Searches bring up a much more wide variety of results; sources presented in article do not demonstrate notability. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Nominator rationale is sound. Sources in article are severly insufficient and searching is a nightmare due to term commonality. Even if we use "Dãm" band -wikipedia as was used at this source only 3 results come up, none of which are eligible for any notability establishing criteria. —Sirdog (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Australian Rainfall Records

2022 Australian Rainfall Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although apparently true information, a Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. The information is however useful, and should be merged to the appropriate articles already in existence. It's me... Sallicio! 15:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, I think you misunderstand why the article is in this AfD. WP:NOTCLEANUP implies the article is simply poorly-written, and is just in need of a make-over. This article is in an AfD because WP is not an indiscriminate compendium of all possible knowledge. Cheers! It's me... Sallicio! 13:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those comments were more a response to Laterthanyouthink than to the nomination rationale. Poor style, even poor referencing style, is a cleanup issue and does not in any way indicate unreliability as claimed. I strongly think P&G are on my side on that point. As for NOTEVERYTHING, that guideline covers a wide range of issues and you have failed to indicate which one applies here. I certainly don't think that rainfall breaking centuries old records is indiscriminate information, especially when it is having such severe effects. The nom then goes on to invoke usefullness as a reason for merging. Useful is not a good rationale for keeping information on Wikipedia either as, or part of, an article per WP:USEFUL. Further suggestion a merge without identifying a target is strongly deprecated here because it impossible to assess how sensible a merge would be. SpinningSpark 15:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Best to merge content into place or flood articles. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Any editor proposing a merge should mention a specific article target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Minh Casali

Lorenzo Minh Casali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a G4, the deleted version discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Casali was more comprehensive, but the underlying issues are the same. No new info since it closed earlier this week. Star Mississippi 14:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy heads up to past participants @Alexandermcnabb, Kasper2006, Alvaldi, Mypurplelightsaber, Frank Anchor, Liz, MaxnaCarta, LibStar, and OliveYouBean: Star Mississippi 14:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete HOW is this back here? My last AfD nomination stands: "Italian artistic gymnast and an impressively put together article but sadly he does not pass the stringent standards of WP:NGYMNAST - which tells us he would have had to have won individual gold or individual medial to be presumed as notable. As he fails WP:GNG and there is not sustained significant coverage in secondary sources, I'm afraid deletion is appropriate. Likely WP:TOOSOON." Now I'd ask that it be SALTed, too - and I'd wonder at the relationship between the new creator and the old creator - and, indeed, the createe. In lieu of DRV, which is surely where this should have gone if anywhere, the close was good, BTW. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Casali was part of the Italian team claiming silver in both the 2022 Euro and Mediterranean Championships and the 4th place team at the World Championships team event where he also qualified for the individual event final in the all-around. He is the reigning silver medalist in the Italian National Championships for both the all-around and floor exercise event as well. His Wiki resume is comparable to that of his compatriot Yumin Abbadini whose Wiki page only details his Euro Games team participation and Nationals AA title. (Abbadini does have individual world cup medals but none are listed in his Wiki). If someone is to delete Casali's page they must also be the one to flesh out Abbadini's page. PyotrRossetti (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be aware of WP:OSE. What is done with one article has no bearing on another article (note, we do not host resumes). If you feel Abbadini is not notable, you're welcome to nominate that article. As @Alexandermcnabb said, there was a process to follow if you felt the close was incorrect. Re-creating the page is not part of that process. Star Mississippi 15:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (copying my rationale from the previous AFD) as a medalist at multiple major international competitions. Even if not a pass by the letter of WP:GNG as the article currently stands, this is a case where WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR need to be used. Also recommend that we WP:TROUT User:PyotrRossetti for promptly re-creating this page and not using DRV (For what its worth, I would have voted to endorse the original close as the only policy-based "keep" argument was the IAR reasoning in my vote) Frank Anchor 15:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing has changed since last time, still fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. This is a modern day athlete who is competing during the golden years of internet coverage so if there is no significant sources found covering him, common sense would dictate that he is non-notable. Alvaldi (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm just going to copy and paste my comment from last time since it hasn't changed: "only source I could find with significant coverage is the Osimo e Dintorni article, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NGYMNAST" (this time the editor who created the page didn't even include the one source which provides significant coverage). OliveYouBean (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still fails WP:NGYMNAST. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because he is one on the main Italian gymnasts.--Arorae (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Issues from the previous AFD remain. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It would appear the previous deletion closure was sound; the issues addressed there are not addressed now. A search on my own end shows a clear failure of WP:GNG and WP:NGYMNAST. —Sirdog (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) AmirŞah 13:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Ricci Bitti

Davide Ricci Bitti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NCYCLING as he hasn't won anything which itself is notable. Finishing 148th in the Giro d'Italia isn't something that meets NCYCLING, and minimal SIGCOV was found on my part InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Debate about Cambrian lophotrochozoans

Debate about Cambrian lophotrochozoans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This feels like an inappropriate synthesis of two separate disputes. 1. The dispute over the affinities of Halkeria/halkeriids and Wiwaxia to molluscs or not. and 2. the dispute over the similarities between the hard elements of Halkeriiids and Chancelloriidae. Both disputes are adequately covered in the relevant taxonomy articles. This article hasn't been updated since 2009, when it was created and is now woefully out of date. Debates about the affinities of specific taxa ideally should be discussed in the articles of the specific taxa in question, or discussed in the "evolution" section of a higher clade, which in this case would be Lophotrochozoa. I do not see what useful purpose this article serves. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and delete The argument that "Debates about the affinities of specific taxa ideally should be discussed in the articles of the specific taxa in question, or discussed in the "evolution" section of a higher clade" is totally logical. The taxa are the root subjects. There's no reason to have a long, separate article on this particular debate. Steven Walling • talk 07:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a giant mass of very out-of-date material. I can't even agree with a "merge" because of the out-of-date-ness issue. Joyous! | Talk 20:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also as far as I can tell, a lot of the material is present almost word for word in Chancelloriidae, Wiwaxia and Halkeriid anyway, so I don't think anything will be lost when the article is deleted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cory DeAn Cowley

Cory DeAn Cowley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed through WP:NPP. Apparent autobiography of a non-notable artist/writer. Sources are entirely unreliable and most only mention the subject in passing anyway. Spicy (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding any reliable sources on this person. Created under CIO. WP:TOOSOON -- WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Halsband

Michael Halsband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completed and utter promotional puffery with lackluster sourcing and nothing truly in depth to be found to meet ncreative PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Photography. Skynxnex (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I immediately recognize the name, probably because of the Klaus Nomi images. Will see if I can find anything in the way of significant coverage to add to the article; and if not, it's too soon. Netherzone (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I marked every instance where the article linked to cited Halsband's website as "better source needed". I think that visually shows how much the article depends on primary source. That source is accessed three different ways in the article. Also uses LinkedIn and Discogs. Surf Book is quasi self-published. Halsband Portraits is self-published. Quite a bit needs to be removed from this article for it to be non-promotional. Giving it a couple of days to see if it is fixed. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and clean up. Should be pruned to a short article removing primary and low quality sourcing, and get rid of unsourced content and promotional fluffery. Despite the current state of the article, he does meet notability criteria for WP:NARTIST (I added three museum collections). Based on what I could find in an online BEFORE search, he also meets WP:GNG. I moved the awards section to the article talk page, as it was entirely sourced to his own website. I noticed that all of the museum collections on his CV are unverifiable except the Museum of Fine Arts Houston. A few of the other institutions listed have shown his work, but he is not represented in their permanent collections. This calls into question the accuracy of self-sourced claims. Netherzone (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources establish this? PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The three museum collections have citations that I added in a new section: Collections; these meet WP:NARTIST, criteria #4. He's also been in numerous exhibitions and may also meet criteria #3. Below is a selection of items found in a BEFORE (some may already be in the article; some are SIGCOV, others are shorter items but not simple mentions, a couple are interviews (primary), and a couple do seem like press releases so wouldn't count towards notability.) I don't have time right now to do a detailed source analysis chart, but clearly it seems there is enough out there to establish notability per GNG and/or BASIC.
Time magazine[41]; GQ[42]; 27East/South Hampton Press[43]; L’oeil: The Eye of Photography[44]; Surfers Journal[45]; Whitehot Magazine (interview with some editorial content)[46]; Interview Magazine (interview with some editorial content)[47]; MuséeMagazine[48]; Vice[49]; East Hampton Star[50]; CUNY TV[51]; Image Culture podcast[52]; Art Daily[53]; Texas Monthly #37[54]; Newsday[55]; Daily News[56]; Wonderland Magazine[57]; Vulture Magazine[58]; Book: Reading Basquiat: Exploring Ambivalence in American Art, Pg. 30-31[59]; Book: Art After Instagram: Art Spaces, Audiences, Aesthetics. Pg. 118-119[60]; i-d Vice[61]; Guardian[62]; Hamptons[63]. - Netherzone (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Liz Truss. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Truss' tenure as Foreign Secretary

Liz Truss' tenure as Foreign Secretary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary article. A lot of the material is copied from Liz Truss, which isn't overly long/difficult to read. Mooonswimmer 20:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Either merge this information to the Liz Truss article section on her time in this position OR reduce what is in that article to a short paragraph and point to this as Main Article on the topic. But don't keep both. Lamona (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Liz Truss seems sensible, unless this article can be expanded beyond what's already in the main article. This is Paul (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Character Creator

Character Creator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no significant coverage of this product. It seems to me that the term (minus the capitals I guess) could be a useful redirect but I can't judge that. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Software. Skynxnex (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it lacks significant RS coverage, and there's no relevant redirect target.--AlexandraIDV 14:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. It's such a generic name that it's hard to find sources for, and searching for something more direct like "Character Creator" "SandBar" only turns up forum posts. Given that the lone reference in the article is from 1989 it's very possible that there were sources that just aren't available online anymore or are print-only. However, my wishful thinking on that matter isn't sufficient, notability needs to be established, and this article doesn't do that. - Aoidh (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is to Delete this article. If the page creator would like the article restored and moved to Draft or User space, let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technological change in Maryland

Technological change in Maryland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very narrow topic that might be better as a section or paragraph within its parent article Maryland, however I'm not making this a merge discussion since I don't even know for sure if something like this would warrant inclusion in another article or where exactly it would go. It might be worth mentioning that no other geographic locations have articles regarding their technological change as far as I know.

Nonetheless, the article's title is misleading, since this is about technological advancements in agriculture within the state rather than technological advancements themselves, making it even more narrow as a topic. Another thing I should probably mention is that Maryland does not have its own agriculture article, but rather a short section within the state's article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • None are press-releases. One is a link to the Department of Agriculture's page about their own efforts so it is a self-description, yes. The fact that I - a few minutes ago - began the article with only agricultural information does not limit the article to future expansion. Which is happening now, because I am in the process of writing it. Invasive Spices (talk) 11 November 2022 (UTC)
@Invasive Spices: If it's true that the article is incomplete, consider completing the article before publishing, write up the most important content in draftspace or your sandbox, or add an under construction tag to give other editors the indication. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. I've never used the under construction tag and I've rarely seen it used, but I'll do one of those. And the next edit has been made. Invasive Spices (talk) 11 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment
It might be worth mentioning that no other geographic locations have articles regarding their technological change as far as I know. Not a reason to delete.
title is misleading Editing is ongoing. I will be making other edits within a few minutes. This is all happening within a few minutes. Invasive Spices (talk) 11 November 2022 (UTC)
@Invasive Spices: The lack of similar articles wasn't my basis for deletion, but rather this being a very specific topic that might not be notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now a mishmash talking about various types of technology. Before it was focusing on the agricultural industry. Cell phones and the ag industry appear to have been chosen at random, with no clear link between the two. It's just an odd combination that doesn't seem to fit well together.Oaktree b (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was criticized for not covering the entire title and now you're criticizing it because it does. The clear link between the two is in the title. Invasive Spices (talk) 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. This doesn't seem to be a particularly good idea for an article topic. Maryland is an integral part of the overall U.S. economy and that of the entire industrialized world, so technological change there is not really a distinct topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan90. There's nothing technologically unique or distinct about Maryland. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly agree that most technological change in the country is going to be indistinct from technological change in Maryland. But that's why I have added only those things which are distinct. The relationship between the state and the Chesapeake is the biggest thing which is why I started there. Technological change which can reduce pollution entering the Chesapeake is very interesting to few states, and this is why it gets attention almost entirely from this state and no one else. If you search around you'll notice almost no discussion of this subject from any other government, and when the EPA does talk about technology for this purpose they talk about Maryland and then a little about Virginia and Pennsylvania.
The 5G jobs part is distinct because, as they point out,[1] that's an unusually dense employment increase because of Maryland's geography. I then did not add in anything else about it because everything else is the same as the rest of the country (and many other countries really). Invasive Spices (talk) 12 November 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mandel, Michael; Long, Elliott (2020). The Third Wave: How 5G Will Drive Job Growth Over the Next Fifteen Years (PDF) (Report). The National Spectrum Consortium. pp. 1–49. Retrieved 2022-11-10.
  • Delete, WP:NOTCATALOG. A list or collection of only very loosely connected topics. Fram (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any information here could be added to the appropriate sections of the Maryland article. I wouldn't recommend a special section on technology because information about agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, etc. is ALL technology. Technology cannot be separated out without replicating much of the Maryland article. It is better to keep them all together. I note that although the article on self-driving tractors writes about a farm in Maryland, there is nothing inherently state-specific about a type of agricultural machine. However, there is nothing in the article Tractor about the self-driving ones, and the information from this article could be included there. Lamona (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the source says, it is specific to Maryland because of the benefits for the Chesapeake Bay of self-driving tractors and farmers' expertise in using them.
However, there is nothing in the article Tractor about the self-driving ones There is, actually.
could be included there Whether particular tractor designs contribute more or less to runoff pollution... yes. That would be good to add that. There's nothing about pollution at all, air or water or anything. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG --Assyrtiko (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Nov 13 I've added intro material on the state's technological change agency, Mtech/Maryland Technology Extension Service.[1]: 147  I think the existence of a state agency specifically for this activity establishes that this article's existence is appropriate. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 November 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwajeet Kumar (politician)

Vishwajeet Kumar (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Purely non-notable, former member of executive committee of a marginal party in one state of India User4edits (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Levenger Company. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Leveen

Steve Leveen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero reliable sources to indicate how this person meets WP:BIO, borderline speedyable. Likely an autobiography. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment hits in GNews that could be used to make an article, but this stinks of promotion and sounds like it was written for a dustjacket on the back of a book. TNT is probably the best. Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't appear to meet GNG requirements. -Roxy the dog 16:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and California. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not seeing how this page meets any notability guidelines that I'm aware of. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Levenger Company, which he cofounded and was CEO of. That article is in need of work, but really the notable topic. Jahaza (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article. It is possible that a redirect is warranted but I'm not convinced of that. I find some sources about this person but none that aren't promotional in nature and tone. He has written "self-help" type books that encourage reading and learning languages, but I'm getting the sense that these are like book-length affirmations. Lamona (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Levenger Company. Joyous! | Talk 16:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. I'm not certain that the Levenger Company meets notability requirements, either. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Transportation in St. Louis. Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation in Greater St. Louis

Transportation in Greater St. Louis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the discussion at Talk:Transportation in St. Louis. This article is unnecessary per WP:OVERLAP. User:Lightmetro, an expert in St. Louis transportation, has done the heavy lifting by expanding Transportation in St. Louis. Originally, I proposed a merger, but now I think Transportation in Greater St. Louis is wholly redundant and far surpassed by the coverage at Transportation in St. Louis. St. Louis is a unique urban area, so please familiarize yourself with our reasoning before opposing. Grey Wanderer (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and did consider that. I figured the simpler title was better, it reflects common usage in the Midwestern United States, again an artifact of St. Louis' unusual geography/history. I'm cool with it either way, and curious about what others think. I assumed the redirect would happen, do I need to propose that explicitly? Sorry I don't nominate here often. Grey Wanderer (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also thought it might make sense to retitle the Transportation in St. Louis page to Transportation in Greater St. Louis for the technicality essentially. Then on the "new" Greater St. Louis page, the note about "see St. Louis" for the information about the city itself could remain at the top of the page. Lightmetro (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 17:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shrinkhala Devi

Shrinkhala Devi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For those who find this article hard to understand, it seems to be about a "Shakti Pitha" temple in West Bengal. I cannot find any fitting news sources, and searching for books online cannot find any with significant coverage. DatGuyTalkContribs 16:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and West Bengal. DatGuyTalkContribs 16:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not seeing reliable sources from online searches that would contribute to the notability of this subject. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the article can't explain what "it" is and has no sources, it can be deleted. I tried searching but have no interest in parsing which portions of the phrase in the script used can help narrow down sources. AfD isn't here to rewrite the article. I'd just TNT it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. That article is a mess. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per the above. Difficult to understand the topic, insufficient sourcing, needs to be blown up and started again. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per WP:SOAP, WP:CIO, WP:SPAM and WP:NOTWEBHOST. In 2022, everyone knows that Wikipedia is not a social media website nor a free web host, and that we are a charity, and abuse of our status is subject to the harshest penalties. Bearian (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus among editors to Delete this article. If the page creator would like to continue to work on this article in Draft or User space, please contact me. Please know that if the article is restored to Draft space and then just moved back into main space, the page will be deleted and future restorations are unlikely. Liz Read! Talk! 00:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greshun De Bouse

Greshun De Bouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable - a WP:BEFORE search shows that this person is a prolific self-promoter making all kinds of self-aggrandising claims, but there is nothing beyond minor local coverage and puffery. Also likely WP:COI concerns given the editing pattern here, as well as elsewhere. Melcous (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete appears he's either running for office or is connected to someone who is. Nothing notable. Six citations for two lines of text is another red flag. With that much RS, your article should be at least a paragraph. This is ref padding. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is credible and should not be deleted. References are verified. Person is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbhpost (talk • contribs) 16:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also can't find significant coverage for bio in RS, and it does seem like promo is going on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be mostly made up of passing mentions. No significant coverage, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 12:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything in terms of SIGCOV. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE-This article is credible and should not be deleted. References are verified. Person is notable. Additional references were added after comments were made requesting additional references. Not self-promotion. Facts with references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbhpost (talk • contribs) 02:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article being targeted for deletion when the statements made are true, verified references for statements are provided, and the accomplishments are notable? Please do not censor this speech. Not self-promotion, not politics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbhpost (talk • contribs) DO NOT DELETE: Oaktree b, the article was at least a paragraph previously, with verifiable references. However, someone edited the article repeatedly to what is displayed currently. I do not know what ref padding is. Melcous, I do not know you. Why do you seem to have a personal vendetta against me, and be leading the crusade of page deletion? If additions are made to the article, you erroneously refer to it as puffery or similar. If additions are not made, you erroneously allege lack of notability. The person and accomplishments are notable. If you see an actual error, perhaps you should reach out and try to assist one with potential corrections, rather than launching an unwarranted deletion crusade. Oaktree, Nothing in this article indicates or illudes to the political status of the subject or any of said subject's real or perceived connections. Please explicate where you find any political reference. Otherwise, please do not allow your inaccurate personal opinion to interfere with freedom of speech for a notable subject. Thank you. Alanscottwalker, What self-promo? There is none. The statements concerning the individual are notable facts with verified references. To all who post in reference to this matter, please refrain from false accusations, and/or negatively skewed personal opinions, as such has no place here. If you have constructive corrective suggestions, please relay such respectfully, rather than aligning with a speech censorship campaign on a notable subject. If something necessary is missing, why not communicate that and assist, rather than maliciously considering a deletion? Perhaps there are things needed of which I was/am not aware. If you really have honorable intentions, assist, DO NOT DELETE. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbhpost (talk • contribs) 12:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There nothing about this individual in terms of contributions, coverage, and SIGCOV. Paul H. (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H., Your statements are false. Coverage and references provided. What is SIGCOV? Inform me of how to check this. I do not understand why you all seem joyful about censoring speech for a notable individual with verifiable references. Why the personal attack? Why not assist with corrections (if needed)? DO NOT DELETE. Are you all being paid to continue this personal censorship attack on me and the subject?

N, How do I sign my comments? I am sticking to the topic. The issue is you all are attacking, rather than trying to assist. There is no reason for anyone to have placed this article for deletion consideration, unless they had/have malicious intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbhpost (talk • contribs) 23:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC) DO NOT DELETE: To All Who Post Here: Be a help and not a hindrance. I have asked how to sign comments to be in compliance. No one responded. I have asked what is, and how to check SICGOV. No one responded. I have explicated not knowing what ref padding is. No one responded. I have asked for assistance with "constructive" corrections if need be (not malicious censorship campaigns). No one responded. The lack of response to my sincere attempts to improve (if need be) is indicative of persons intentionally and maliciously attempting to mute an article on a notable subject with verifiable references. All you all have done is criticize, and post adverse, often false statements about the article and author. At what point are you all going to attempt to assist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbhpost (talk • contribs) 13:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete When I searched for better sources, the most prominent hits were a lot of self-promotion by the subject and almost no coverage of her from independent sources. See also the analysis of the provided sources by Dennis Brown on the article's talk page.
Addressing various points by Sbhpost:
  • Sign your comments by adding four tildes at the end (~~~~).
  • WP:SIGCOV refers to "significant coverage", and the link above (and right here) points to the relevant section of Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
  • This discussion is to determine whether the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines. A proper encyclopedia article needs to be sourced from significant coverage (there's that term again) by reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Ideally, we would want to see more than just coverage on local news sites, but even leaving that aside, the sum total of what we can glean from the given sources is "Greshun De Bouse is an activist and she created these days" and little else, and that doesn't add up to an encyclopedia article. If anything, there's more support here for articles on these Days that she's created rather than a biographical piece on her herself, and that's not saying much.
  • One of the important guidelines on Wikipedia is to assume good faith of one's fellow editors. We're discussing policy here, not making judgements about the subject or about you as an editor, and it is not a personal attack to state that the article you wrote does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Please do not accuse other editors of maliciousness or censorship without good reason. To be fair, I think the nominator's original statement could have been worded less unkindly, but you should understand that we have to fend off a lot of spam, self-promotion, and outright vandalism around here, so an experienced editor should be forgiven for being a bit jaded.
  • By that same token, don't assume that the editors above haven't tried to help. Many, many articles have been "saved" because the deletion discussion put more eyes on the situation and better sources were found to bring the articles in question up to snuff, or close enough. It may be that this is not possible in this case.
I hope this helps. Feel free to ask further questions, and please check out the links to policies and procedures provided above. Thanks. --Finngall talk 22:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finngall, It is a personal attack, when I have asked for help and such help has not been provided. Just because one is an experienced editor, does not mean good faith should be assumed if they are making adverse comments, but not responding to my requests for help. Just as you at least stated how to sign, others could have done the same. If they are experienced editors and I am not, why not at least offer to assist me? All should assume good faith relative to me as well, rather than directly or indirectly assuming whatever they allege is wrong with the article was done intentionally. The situation seems very one-sided. Editors can not make false accusations and erroneous statements, then again falsely accuse me of making statements that are not "civil", or that could be worded better. I believe their statements should be worded better. I believe the subject is notable, and the article is well referenced. I clearly am open to "constructive" article improvement. Hence, the reason I have been asking for help. The article has been in existence for some time. It was lengthier previously,but persons kept editing it to what you currently see. Thus, I left it that way. Why would you all campaign to delete an article when I repeatedly ask for help? I do not understand this. Also, the self-promotion comments are unwarranted. 

Sbhpost (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sbhpost, you might like to read WP:BLUDGEON - this page is specifically to discuss policy reasons whether this article meets wikipedia criteria, particularly around notability, and continuing to make long posts here may be counter-productive to your goals. See also Guide to Deletion and particularly the section "Please do not take it personally". I will also note that the reference to "self-promotion" in my deletion nomination refers to the subject of the article (which is fairly clearly demonstrated for example here), not to you. Unless of course you are the subject of the article, in which case please read WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Thank you Melcous (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per WP:SOAP, WP:CIO, WP:SPAM and WP:NOTWEBHOST. In 2022, everyone knows that Wikipedia is not a social media website nor a free web host, and that we are a charity, and abuse of our status is subject to the harshest penalties. Bearian (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 00:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oxalobacter aliiformigenes

Oxalobacter aliiformigenes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have no idea what went wrong here, but this species does not appear to exist. It is not present in any databases, and the single reference given [2] makes no mention of it, instead dealing with Oxalobacter formigenes. I guess this is either a mistake or a Latin pun (which is mildly smirk-worthy but still, don't do this kind of thing...) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Clarke, Marianne (2020). "Recent state initiatives: an overview of state science and technology policies and programs". Growth Policy in the Age of High Technology. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781351121712. ISBN 9780815359005. ISBN 9781351121712. }}
  2. ^ Duncan, Sylvia H.; Richardson, Anthony J.; Kaul, Poonam; Holmes, Ross P.; Allison, Milton J.; Stewart, Colin S. (2002). "Oxalobacter formigenes and Its Potential Role in Human Health". Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 68 (8): 3841–3847. doi:10.1128/AEM.68.8.3841-3847.2002. ISSN 0099-2240. PMC 124017. PMID 12147479.
Add: Ooh, found it. Apparently it is a proposed species, as per an unpublished paper [64] - or so it is claimed at Oxalobacter_formigenes#Taxonomy; there not being an accessible version of that paper online, who knows. In that case, suggest punting this to draft pending publication and verification of this description. Currently we can't base an article on that source. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was accepted actually, it's just in the proofing/formatting stage. So technically published for our purposes and at the notability threshold if they are actually formally describing the species, but the full article just isn't accessible yet. If they are more tentative about it being a species in the actual article though, then I'd be wary of having a page dedicated to it and wait for other sources. Definitely a bit of a too soon case, so I agree draftifying seems like the best option right now. KoA (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's spelled with a single "i" in that paper, aliformigenes; I'm not sure which spelling is correctly Latinized. The nomenclatural code for prokaryotes mandates that new taxon must be published in a single journal, IJSEM. The LPSN database does include records for proposed taxa that aren't validly published (may be invalid for a variety of reasons, not only because they weren't published in IJSEM). IJSEM regularly publishes papers validating taxa that were first proposed in other journals. Plantdrew (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what that all says to me is that we'd best draftify this until an unambiguous published record is available. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment either draftify or move to the taxonomy section as above. Both seem ok. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per Elmidae and my comments above. KoA (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify at least wait until something is published, ideally wait until LPSN includes a record, or even wait until validated by publication in IJSEM. Plantdrew (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Karol Stanisław Radziwiłł (1734–1790). I've decided to redirect the article as an ATD to her husband's article to preserve content in the case that superior sourcing is uncovered. Please do not undo this redirect if you are unhappy with this result. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Karolina Rzewuska

Teresa Karolina Rzewuska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simply does not meet either WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. She gets some brief mentions, and was awarded a minor award, but there is simply not enough as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Should be redirected to either Rzewuski family or husband, [[Karol Stanisław Radziwiłł (1734–1790) ]], but that is being reverted. Onel5969 TT me 12:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You called the Order of the Starry Cross a minor award? Herzog von Teschen (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and add her name to the list at Order of the Starry Cross, once it has been verified. If that cross is believed to be honorable, even though it is awarded only to "high-born ladies" (princesses, countesses, and other high nobility) as explained here, then she should be included in the list. I have asked another editor who is a librarian to help verify that information because I do not have access to the cited book but then I haven't checked WP:TWL, yet. Verification is important for adding her to the list, not for keeping the stub. She lacks notability for inclusion as a standalone because it fails notability beyond entitlement as one of the "high-born ladies". I would be ok with draftifying what we have now to allow editors to properly follow WP:MOS and satisfy WP:GNG, but that requires expanding the bio with verifiable material cited to RS, as I explained to the article creator. Atsme 💬 📧 14:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no personal relevance in her article. An individual should only have an article if they have personal relevance. Her article only contains geneaological information, nothing about her as an individual: no acts of importance, only names and dates. Regardless of nationality, no person (except royalty) should have an article in wikipedia just because they belong to a certain family. If the family is important it is enough to have an article about the family, not each individual from it. The Order, it seems, were given to many people just because of their social status and not because they had performed any particular act themselwes. Herzog von Teschen compare it to Anne of Gloucester, but she has personal relevance because she inherited a title in her own right. --Aciram (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you tell me how anybody could inherited any title in Poland in the 18th century? There is the same level of nobility. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It's the same level of nobility, but we care about notability--the sources at Anne of Gloucester are far more comprehensive than what has been provided so far for Teresa Rzewuska, and that is the decisive difference. signed, Rosguill talk 16:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not answer for the first question, it's crucial. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think it's critical, you understand very little about Wikipedia's notability guidelines. signed, Rosguill talk 17:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you couldn't read in Polish and no nothing about Polish aristocracy, how could you judge about this article? Herzog von Teschen (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:N. signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    She passed the criteria WP:N. She had a biographical entry and a chapter in academic book devoted to her divorce, among other sources. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Available coverage in independent RS is limited to mere mentions--Herzog von Taschen has asserted that additional coverage exists but has not made it available to anyone else in this discussion. Based on the available coverage, redirect is appropriate, but I'm willing to take a look at the additional sources if their content can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To be fair, we need help from Polish editors. Herzog von Teschen you should expand the article what she did. Taung Tan (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is not a lack of ability to read Polish, but that at this point HvT is basing their argument on offline sources and has not provided quotes of the relevant content. The online Polish sources have only trivial coverge of Teresa, instead focusing on other, more-notable members of her family.signed, Rosguill talk 16:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a whole academic article dedicated to her, besides other sources, and you called this trivial coverge? I suppose you had read this article before wrote this comment. Did you? Herzog von Teschen (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I read through the two accessible sources: [65], which is about Ludwika Maria Chodkiewicz née Rzewuski, and [66], which is about Teresa's father, Waclaw. There appear to be two sentences about Teresa across those entire articles. Yes, that is trivial. signed, Rosguill talk 17:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you didn't read Rozwody w rodzinach magnackich w Polsce XVI-XVIII wieku, where is a whole chapter dedicated to her divorce. You read in Polish or only use translator? Herzog von Teschen (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have repeatedly asked you to provide quotes from that source. You have yet to do so. I can read a little Polish and have been relying on a mix of straight reading and machine translation to verify my understandings. I cannot read a book that I do not have access to, regardless of languagesigned, Rosguill talk 17:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not WP:GA discussion. There are independent sources, she had a biographical entry, she had an entire chapter dedicated to her in a peer-reviewed academic book. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So provide sourcing. Saying the sky is blue isn't enough, we need evidence. Oaktree b (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The biographical entry is already cited in the article (Jerzy Sewer Dunin Borkowski: Panie polskie przy dworze rakuskim. Lwów 1891, p. 13). A peer-reviewed academic books is mentioned in the "Further Readings" section. This is a normal stub-class article. You have evidence that sky is blue and you are saying "No, it's not". Herzog von Teschen (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So provide quotes from the source, as you've been repeatedly asked to, that demonstrate why this person is notable. Simply being mentioned in a peer-reviewed academic book is not enough. A key component of Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability, how does one verify the information you're claiming exists? Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, a text from 1891 is going to be considered a primary source in this context, so I wouldn't focus on that. That having been said, if you can provide relevant excerpts from Rozwody, I and others will likely change our !votes. But given the misconceptions about notability you've expressed above in this discussion, I'm not inclined to assume the admissibility of evidence that I can't review. I'll also note that if the relevant chapter is focused on Teresa's divorce, there is a nonzero chance that this coverage really belongs at Karol Stanisław Radziwiłł (1734–1790) and may not establish Teresa's notability. signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no historian who could treated this particular publications as primary sources. This is a secondary sources. The date of publications has nothing to do about being primary or secondary sources. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), particularly the sections WP:HISTRH and WP:HISTRW. signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read eg. [67]. As you don't understand the difference between primary and secondary sources, it's really hard for me to discuss about historical topic. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As she was the wife of Karol Stanisław Radziwiłł (1734–1790) she may be Grand Duchess of Lithuania. Why not ? Taung Tan (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with Aciram's comment, this person's notability has not been established. The Order of the Starry Cross award is not enough. We don't create articles for every child of every person that is notable because notability is not inherited. While HvT repeatedly advocates for the notability of this person, they've yet to provide anything that backs it up. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, until such time as Herzog von Teschen feels that they can supply the requested source quotes that demonstrate significant coverage. Should be easy, considering they have an entire chapter ready to go. When that happens, I'll reassess.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a biography here in Polish on page 130 (139 of the pdf): https://crispa.uw.edu.pl/object/files/415423/display/Default. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! Many thanks, Mcferran. Could you find sources for Ludwika Maria Rzewuska and Anna Lubomirska (died 1763). Regards. Taung Tan (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changed to no vote) finally I voted 'keep' as per the source above https://crispa.uw.edu.pl/object/files/415423/display/Default, found by the liberian Mcferran, she was emphasizing documented in reliable sources by historians because of her historical significance or interest. Taung Tan (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or preferrable soft delete by redirecting to her husband Karol Stanisław Radziwiłł (1734–1790). Good find by Mcferran but that biography is saying almost nothing of her: date of birth, date of death, parents, and husband (date and place of marriage). 90% of it is listing the noble titles/positions of her father/husband. There is no claim of significance to her life, she was born, she got married, that's it. That's not enough IMHO. Ping User:Taung Tan who voted based on that source. Note: I read Polish - with all due respect, I don't think either of you, Tan and Mcferran, does, and being able to read such sources can be important to determin whether WP:SIGCOV is met or not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, Thanks, Has she never held any noble title during her lifetime? Taung Tan (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Taung Tan Not that I am aware of, although in Polish noble society of that time she would be addressed by honorifics related to the positions of her father and husband (does marrying a prince make you a princess?). She might even have been called a princess, but such titles were not legally recognized in Poland (although, again, they were polite honorifics). Anyway, the only special achievement she had was receving the Order of the Starry Cross, and we don't know what for (probaby as a favor to her husband). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She received the most important award that woman could be awarded in the Habsburg monarchy in the 18th century. She had a biographical entry due to this fact, not due to her husband or father. Also her divorce was described by scholars. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found her portrait and added it to the article. I know she may be something important during the days of monarchy of Poland. If she was a Burmese noble lady, I'm pretty sure I can save her article on Wikipedia. I'll find sources both offline and online as much as I can. I've kept countless Burmese royalty articles. Unfortunately for this, I can't read Polish, and it's hard to find sources. I really don't want to lose this article. Taung Tan (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Royalty and nobility are not the same thing. All royalty are notable, but nobility are not necessarily notable, they must have personal notability just like everyone else. --Aciram (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It should be noted that enWikipedia has a great number of articles of Polish noblemen/women which contains nothing more than their genealogy and are lack as much notability as this one. Perhaps someone should look at the category of Polish nobility, and there would be numerous articles like this.--Aciram (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A consensus of a Weak Keep is still a Keep. The editors with this opinion argue that sourcing, in the article and mentioned here, is sufficient. Liz Read! Talk! 16:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwika Maria Rzewuska

Ludwika Maria Rzewuska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simply does not meet either WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. She gets some brief mentions, and was awarded a minor award, but there is simply not enough as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Should be redirected to Rzewuski family, but that is being reverted. There is one seemingly in-depth source, from Klio, but beyond that, nothing. Onel5969 TT me 12:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention about any award in this article. Why do not considere chapter in the academic book Migration – Kommunikation – Transfer written by two Polish scholars as an in-depth source? You also did not check sources from "Further reading" sections. You could also find additional information in Dzieje rodu Chodkiewiczów by Leszek Podhorodecki. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should check sources using the name "Ludwika Chodkiewiczowa", not Ludwika Maria Rzewuska. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, there is one good source already cited in the article (although given its frankly misleading title, Instructions of Ludwika Maria Chodkiewicz née Rzewuski regarding children, I'm not surprised that other editors glanced over and missed it) and there appears to be some coverage on Google Scholar under the Chodkiewiczowa surname; perhaps not quite enough to meet GNG in itself, but it is suggestive of the existence of additional offline coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 17:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Royalty and nobility, and Poland. Skynxnex (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per One|5969, or at the very least, Draftify or restore and protect the redirect that keeps being removed. Sorry, but being notable and being worthy as a standalone in main space are 2 different things. These types of bullet point stubs fail MOS, not to mention the policies I mentioned in the AfD for Teresa Karolina Rzewuska by the same article creator. When articles fail PAGs, they should either be deleted or draftified, redirected or merged, and definitely not kept in main space as it only invites more of the same which we definitely do not want or need. We certainly need to avoid a trend of including bios about non-notable women who marry notable men, or who are the daughters or wives of say...various monarchial regimes, or dictators, etc. This particular article was created in 2005 – 17 years ago – and little to nothing has changed over its history of redirects, which have created time sinks for overtaxed NPP reviewers. The article has -0- page views in the past 30 days and is not in high demand by readers. Atsme 💬 📧 21:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability =/ being high demand by readers. She is notable herself, not due to her husband. There is a new academic article dedicated to her. Why we do not trust academic scholars? I am not the creator of this article. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I highly recommend that you seek guidance from one of the experienced mentors at WP:Teahouse. They can answer all your questions. Atsme 💬 📧 00:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per above, she was discussed by historians and scholars. It is still my philosophy that eighteenth-century nobles who are documented by one reliable source are notable. She is notable than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa Karolina Rzewuska. Taung Tan (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep -- It is clear that here instructions concerning children are regarded by scholars as important. Women authors of the 18th century are uncommon, suggesting significance. The present article has little detail, but might usefully be exanded by saying more about what she wrote. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. [68] seems like a decent and reliable source. And here's another one: [69]. While they are reviews of her work, they also discuss her at not inconsiderable lenght. I think that's enough to meet NBIO/GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep She might be notable because she was a writer. But the article should say more about her writing, to make clear that she is a notable writer.--Aciram (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Heibutzki

Ralph Heibutzki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: Non-notable musician, author. MurrayGreshler (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Searches find notices of events relating to a "We are the Clash" book that the subject co-authored, and passing mentions of other articles which he has written, but I am not seeing evidence that he meets any of the WP:NAUTHOR criteria, nor is the biography on his site [70] indicative that better may be available. AllyD (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Since the article says nothing about anything he may have accomplished as a musician, WP:NAUTHOR is the guideline to use. Per the requirements there, I can find no pro reviews of any of his books, and no larger coverage of his writing career as a whole. He is only present in basic release announcements and retail listings for his smattering of books. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ron Klimko

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Ron Klimko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a "vanity entry" for a deceased University music professor. Sources include "who's who" in a specialty magazine with a dead link and is therefore an unverifyable credential and a print advertisement for "music lessons." I did a search for sources and found a self published book with little reach or impact; https://www.amazon.com/Bassoon-performance-practices-teaching-United/dp/B0007AH8J4 The biography reads well and is interesting; but in my opinion the subject is not notable. The account that created this article (which reads almost like an obituary.) WP:MEMORIAL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The.matt.williamson There are no supporting references that can be found. Prior to asking for a deletion discussion I tagged the article PROD. How can an unsourceable memorial article be improved? Flibbertigibbets (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"In my opinion, to improve the article to an acceptable standard would involve finding sources (tried) or deleting unsupported statements (blanking - not acceptable). I cannot find any sources of merit let alone quality sources. Notability could be found even without quotable sources, but this is not the case; there are no indicators of notability I perceive the article has been written as a memorial (by an account created for that sole purpose); for a subject that is not notable." additional comments. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Connection to the Double Reed might be notable, but this is nothing more than a bloated CV at this point. Might redirect to the Double Reed article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think REDIRECT would be a great idea! Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I cut down the article of most of the puffery and cruft. He may pass WP:NPROF#8 as editor of The Double Reed. Curbon7 (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The subject is mentioned, somewhat substantively, in this review [71] of a history of American bassoon instruction; it appears that there is a substantive obit by the IDRS that is behind a paywall [72]. Our current article I think might oversell the importance of Klimko's bassoon instruction book: last I knew, the Weissenborn Practical Method for the Bassoon was still the central work used. OTOH, I do expect that Klimko's book had some impact, and will comment that reviews may be difficult to find for this work predating the Internet era. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Honduran cuisine. Liz Read! Talk! 16:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine of Tegucigalpa

Cuisine of Tegucigalpa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This well-intentioned article has devolved to nothing but a Wikitravel piece apparently sourced only to travel guides and not reflecting any recognition of Tegucigalpa cuisine being collectively qualitatively different than Honduran cuisine generally (apart from there being more restaurants in the capital city, which is not an encyclopedic phenomenon). My search reveals no journalism regarding the Tegucigalpa cuisine "scene" other than barely literate clickbait ("The 25 Foods You Have To Eat Before You Die In Tegucigalpa"). At most, a redirect to Honduran cuisine is appropriate, but it is difficult to imagine a user searching in the first instance for this title versus the country-wide title. Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Restaurants in Tegucigalpa would perhaps be a more suitable name. We're not Wiki Travel, but see no issue with having general overviews of things like shopping and restaurants in big cities. In fact better to have some mention on here for subjects which might not ever have an individual article. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Honduran cuisine. Every source seems to be about Honduran or Central American, none of them seem to be about Tegucigalpan cuisine? Is there any evidence the city has an actual cuisine? Valereee (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Add; We generally don't have lists or articles about individual cities' restaurants or cuisine, except for very large cities, or those which are atypical of their nations' cuisine. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The text on the page admits that there is nothing distinct about Tegucigalpa cuisine, and says nothing relevant that the Honduran cuisine article doesn't, as far as I can see. The existence of restaurants serving explicitly non-Honduran cuisine is off-topic. If someone wants to make a List of restaurants in Tegucigalpa with all the wiki articles on restaurants in the city, they can, but there's nothing here that can really help with that.OsFish (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The tone of the article is that of a travel guide. There's nothing of importance to merge that isn't already in the article on Honduran cuisine, and already in a more encyclopedic tone.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Discussion on which direction a possible move would go can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 02:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Foos

Gerald Foos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extent of notability unclear. A voyeur covered in an article by The New Yorker's Gay Talese, and in a Netflix documentary directed by Myles Kane and Josh Koury. Steven Spielberg and Sam Mendes also intended on creating a film about Foos. Is all this enough to establish notability? Mooonswimmer 16:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TOOSOON seems to apply, maybe when the films finally come out and he gets more traction. Too soon for a voyeur, words you never thought you'd say. Oaktree b (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The film has already come out, ok then. I don't see much more than what's given in the article already. Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The book was released in 2016 and the film, Voyeur (film) was released in 2017. Cullen328 (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not seeing much traction having been gained in the last 5 years. Trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that a 240 page book written by famous author Gay Talese and a 96 minute documentary film shown on Netflix, and a bunch of newspaper articles amounts to "trivial mentions", Oaktree b? Cullen328 (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
they don't turn up in Gsearch Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, I was easily able to find coverage in the Washington Post and the New York Times and the New Yorker and the Denver Post and Slate and Forbes and Vogue and National Public Radio and the Los Angeles Times and The Atlantic and Mccleans. And many others. And many of these publications ran several articles about Foos. He's notable. Cullen328 (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Just created a redirect for The Voyeur's Motel to go to Voyeur (film). The article for Foos gets more than 150 visits a day on average, so don't delete it, just do the same for that one. — Mainly 20:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to and cleanup at The Voyeur's Motel. I've temporarily redirected that page to Gerald Foos, but it should be the other way around. The Gay Talese article/book is the primary topic, which achieved widespread notability and was covered not just with reviews, but with several rounds of news coverage. There should be another article about the derivative documentary film, which is partly about Talese and his article/book. (As described, e.g. here in New York Magazine/The Vulture[73].) Coverage of the book:
Per WP:CRIME, we don't need an article about the perpetrator directly when the info can be included in the article about the journalistic investigation/article/book. Jahaza (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and it's not close given the sourcing Cullen328 identified. This is no intended to forestall a move - I think focusing on the book make a lot of sense, but that's an editorial decision that can be hashed out on the appropriate talk pages. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and move to The Voyeur's Motel - Sufficient sources were provided by Cullen328 to demonstrate notability per WP:CRIME. Alimovvarsu (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)(sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 12:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chakkal

Chakkal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the efforts of several editors to regularize this article, it remains unreferenced and fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The possibility of this article being changed to a Redirect can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Harbord, 8th Baron Suffield

John Harbord, 8th Baron Suffield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like a genealogy entry: no real claims for notability, just a title he held for a couple of years. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If he has a short obituary in The Times, by all means it should be cited here if it contains any useful information. This person died at a fairly young age (38) in 1945, but he doesn't seem to have died in active World War II service. If he didn't take up his seat in the House of Lords (which he inherited in 1943), perhaps he was engaged in some service for the war effort, but I can't find any relevant information about him online beyond what is already in this article. What this article says doesn't seem to warrant much more than a redirect to Baron Suffield, but maybe there are print sources which could improve the article. As of yet, I don't know. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as a member of the House of Lords. That he had not yet taken his seat before his death is parallel to NPOL's specific inclusion of "people who have been elected to such offices [in national legislatures] but have not yet assumed them". Ingratis (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said "parallel to" - he succeeded to a seat rather than being elected to it, but the seat was still in a national legislature, and the principle is the same. Ingratis (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
No, it isn't. Politicians work to get elected, expounding their positions, then actually enacting legislation, generating media attention. Somebody just being handed a seat on a plate, then not even bothering to show up, is hardly the same. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did being a member of the pre-reform Lords make someone a full member of the national legislature of the UK? Yes, it did, and he was, so NPOL is met - that's all that's relevant. Everything else is your own subjective view, for which there is no room in NPOL or any requirement here. Ingratis (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My subjective view? Have you actually read NPOL? It has two criteria, neither of which he remotely comes close to satisfying:
(1) "Politicians ...", so instant fail.
(2) "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Triple fail. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, being a member of the Lords made one a full fledged member of a national legislature. But the question is what makes one a "member". For instance, it's clear that those who acceded to a title but were not yet 21 were not members. Then there are a bunch of edge cases. What about those for whom it's accepted that they acceded to a title but they never proved it? What if they never received a writ of summons? What if they never took the oath? And I'm not in favor of deleting the article entirely, but suggesting that with minimal information and minimal importance, it's probably sufficient to merge the topic into Baron Suffield. Jahaza (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subjectivity, @Clarityfiend, is in your peculiar personal definition of what a politician is in this context. The House of Lords is an integral part of the UK Parliament and its members are integral to the UK political and legislative process and members of a national legislature, which is good enough as a sensible definition of a politician to meet NPOL. @Jahaza: the only one of your "what ifs" that apparently applies here is the last one, which as I said before can be seen as parallel to NPOL's "people who have been elected to such offices [in national legislatures] but have not yet assumed them". Ingratis (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES - whether or not you liked the system, Lords inherited seats in their parliament. Bearian (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vish Narain

Vish Narain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find sources to show that he meets WP:GNG / WP:BASIC. Having worked with notable firms doesn't make a person notable, and the listed awards don't automatically confer notability, either – especially as there are no independent, secondary sources that discuss his receiving them. bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see any significance of the article, and most sources are unreliable. Timothytyy (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Kollam Municipal Corporation. Liz Read! Talk! 16:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sabitha Beegam

Sabitha Beegam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mayors of a small cities are not notable to have an independent article. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Waldman, Amy (April 18, 2003). "World Briefing Asia: India: A First". The New York Times. New York City. p. A7.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 09:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitriy Petrukhin

Dmitriy Petrukhin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is so beyond repair that I don't even know where to possibly begin. He might squeak through GNG, possibly WP:POLOUTCOMES as a member of the mäslihat of Almaty, but the condition of this article is so beyond salvageable that it is probably better to blow up and start again. Curbon7 (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Curbon7. The page is far beyond any neutraliy. Roughly 95% of the facts aren't possible to prove by RS. --多少 战场 龙 (talk) 08:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:TNT. I actually found few sources in the Kazakhstan media that discuss him in some depth [82] [83] [84] [85] (in this one [86] there's a non-interview bit at the start too). Another thing is that he seems notable per WP:POLOUTCOMES as mentioned above and WP:ANYBIO (with the national orders). On the other hand, WP:COI/paid editing is quite obvious looking at the article creator's edit history and the concerns raised by the nominator are valid. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 17:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Fyodorovich Morozov

Mikhail Fyodorovich Morozov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

person does not seem to have the necessary relevance, and the references are weak (in some cases insufficient) Melchior2006 (talk) 07:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt per WP:SOAP, WP:CIO, WP:SPAM and WP:NOTWEBHOST. In 2022, everyone knows that Wikipedia is not a social media website nor a free web host, and that we are a charity, and abuse of our status is subject to the harshest penalties. Bearian (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Widow's Assassin

The Widow's Assassin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this article meets WP:GNG. There are two references given but I'm not convinced that they are reliable sources. I think a suitable redirect target would be Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures as it's a part of that series. OliveYouBean (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be borderline. Nonetheless, the article needs to be improved to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 07:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned to no consensus per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 November 18. Sandstein 16:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Gokongwei

Lance Gokongwei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article. WP:DRAFTIFY may be an option, if he is shown to be separately notable from JG Summit Holdings Inc (where he has worked throughout his career). MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Philippines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, the article does read like a promotional piece (and I have tried to edit it to make it less promotional of JG Summit Holdings Inc.) However, there are also other Wikipedia pages of other CEOs who have not been notable outside of their business, such as Jim Walton, William Clay Ford Jr. and Theo Albrecht Jr.. So, to me, keep the article, but needs improvement.D-Flo27 (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's been edited to make it less promotional. ManilaStoryteller (talk) 15:09, 02 November 2022 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: ManilaStoryteller (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • Keep Has been proven to be notable multiple times. Deletion cannot fix it's promotionable subjectivity, but, a simple edit will PlorekyHave a problem? 08:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @Ploreky, can you clarify your "proven to be notable multiple times" comment? As far as I can find there isn't any prior discussion of this subject's notability (the page had a declined PROD and a declined G11, but neither speak to notability). Just curious if I'm missing earlier discussion here since I'm looking for sources currently. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 06:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good day! what was I pertaining to is that Lance Gokongwei has already been proven multiple times based on the sources in the articles. In the article, there are many reliable tertiary sources that significantly covers the subject, hence, is proven to be notable many times. And should be kept as per the guidelines in WP:GNG. And WP:BASIC also tells that this is notable. It's okay if you thought that what I was pertaining to was previous discussions. :) PlorekyHave a problem? 11:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha! I have a small bit of friendly advice, if you'll welcome it (though, you know, feel free to ignore me entirely, I'm not an expert on anything): at AfD, it's helpful to provide examples and fully state your reasoning. Even if you think notability has already been clearly established by the article, it's good to restate what you think establishes it. AfD is a consensus process and not a vote; clear policy-based arguments are valuable both for showing your own thoughts and convincing others, and can be generally helpful for other editors examining the article. Stating that something is obvious or already proven with no other info is less likely to be taken seriously in establishing consensus—what's obvious to you might not be obvious to everyone else! For instance, you referenced GNG. If you want to make a GNG/BASIC based argument for notability, it helps to give examples of reliable, significant, and independent sources covering the subject of this article. This isn't a requirement for participating at AfD, though, just some friendly advice. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 15:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear from other editors on this article and the suitability of Draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. A lot of the coverage is either unreliable profiles, about the company, or extremely limited, but it seems like he might be notable. I think moving to draft space is an appropriate alternative to deletion. There's content here that I think can be improved by the editors already working on the article, but the promotional language seems like a net negative to keep in article space. I also noticed some weird issues with the citations not clearly supporting all of the content; for instance, the article contains the line "Our world seemed to turn upside-down," Gokongwei said, as he faced the greatest challenge of his career which cites this AP article: [87]; neither the quote nor any mention of Lance Gokongwei appears in the article. That makes me more generally concerned about poorly-cited BLP issues. I think all the content here should go through an AfC review before it's put into main space. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 15:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the citation for that particular "upside-down" quote. It was from CNN, which is linked now. from The AP story citation was from the earlier sentence that mentions the Cebu Pacific plane crash.
The profiles where he is mentioned include Bloomberg, Forbes, and Nikkei Asia. ManilaStoryteller (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added his involvement in Philanthropy and Sustainability to show his notability outside the business. As mentioned in an earlier reply, the profiles where he is mentioned include Bloomberg, Forbes, and Nikkei Asia, aside from local Philippine publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManilaStoryteller (talk • contribs) 03:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for not signing comment earlier. ManilaStoryteller (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)ManilaStoryteller[reply]
Note: Double keep !votes by ManilaStoryteller, which is running afoul to policies on deletion nomination discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AH! Thought ok to comment again since relisted. Double apologies. No more comments. Learning a lot. ManilaStoryteller (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after recent improvements to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify Subject seems to be noatble but due to the issues in the tone of the article and using non-encyclopedic content, it is better to move it to draft space. Alimovvarsu (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC) — Alimovvarsu (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock puppet of Elbatli (talk · contribs). [reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello SBKSPP. Which references do you believe support that WP:NBIO is met please? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Natacha Akide

Anita Natacha Akide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep There are enough reliable sources to verify the facts in the article. Alien Superstar (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment @User:Reading Beans How can you say that the article has been created by a page paid editor, what proof do you have that that editor has made this article with money, yes if you think that the article should be deleted and it is according to the guideline of wikipedia If not made then you can write for it but you have no right, you can call any editor as paid editor. WP:EDITWARRING do edit warring without any strong evidence. 🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC) - strike sock - Beccaynr (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lionfox0909, what does edit warring got to do with with undisclosed paid editing? Best, Reading Beans (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of independent reliable source with significant coverage.[88], [89],[90] and [91] are enough to establish notability.Kasar Wuya (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Strike sock.Onel5969 TT me 21:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The current version of the article should be kept away from our readers.Lurking shadow (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Draftify Doing a single notable deed cannot proof you notable WP:BLP1E. D 🐕 B 🦇K🐞 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC) - strike sock - Beccaynr (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Most of the sources are name drops, or confirmation she was on the TV show, being involved with a charity really isn't anything beyond a few lines. Socks tell me this isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above explanation of User:Beccaynr, which clearly provide evidence of Notability existence. An@ss_koko(speak up) 18:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Beccaynr - the coverage of the subject is indepth and reliable. And somewhere it meets WP:BASIC. See the news articles from reliable websites like US Weekly, Monsters & Critics, The Vanguard, PMNews, Nigerian Tribune. Shankyamber (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And those sources are quoting what she said. Not in-depth for a BLP. And by the way, are you not the creator of the article? Best, Reading Beans (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Content creators can participate in deletion discussions, just like any other editor. Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean so long as we keep it civil, any ideas help move the discussion forward. I'd not worry about it. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of layout engines (Scalable Vector Graphics)

Comparison of layout engines (Scalable Vector Graphics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was proposed for deletion in 2018 as Obsolete info - hasn't had meaningful updates in 7 years. Hasn't been updated in the last three years, and furthermore suffers the same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of browser engines (CSS support) (2nd nomination) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Half of the things on this page don't exist anymore. The rest have full SVG support now. Also, we're not http://caniuse.com. 3mi1y (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for a Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my rationale from the other AfD (which this page really should have been included in). Modernponderer (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, except I didn't discover this page until over a month after filing that AfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is the article should not exist as an article about the theatre company, so it will be deleted. Anyone wishing to obtain the content as a draft, including about Martyn Roberts, may request this at WP:REFUND without further reference to me. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afterburner (theatre production company)

Afterburner (theatre production company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG based on significant coverage by independent sources. No sources cover the theatre company in any level of depth, and the majority of cites are closely connected to the company or otherwise not-independent. The best source, a review ([99]) speaks only to the basic facts of the company. — HTGS (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this is blatantly an ad. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's pretty on the nose. It's not an ad at all, I don't know the people involved and have not been to any of their performances. The article came about as part of the Performing Arts Aotearoa New Zealand project, an attempt to improve the pretty rubbish coverage of performing arts companies and people in NZ. I'll notify participants there in case anyone is aware of more sources, I do agree that they aren't great, I was disappointed with what I could find when I wrote the page, given the multi-award winning people involved in it. DrThneed (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, as nominator, while I have issue with the fact that the page is by consequence promotional, I did check the edit history and I have absolute confidence that DrThneed created and edited in good faith. — HTGS (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion - I have today expanded the article in an attempt to better demonstrate notability of 'demonstrable effects on culture, entertainment'. It may still not meet requirements and I look forward to further review and investigation. Perhaps it could be merged into an an article about the founder Martyn Roberts. As a member of the New Zealand performing arts industry I am declaring here that Martyn Roberts is known to me - I have no ongoing professional work relationship with him or afterburner. Pakoire (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NORG. There are some issues. A theatre production company and the individual plays. The reviews are mainly about the plays. Some wording issues would be, "I have no ongoing professional work relationship...". Any editor that has, or has had, a relationship with the subject needs to declare a conflict of interest.
Done Pakoire (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC) (on the talk page of the article)[reply]
  • Comment: The content of the article is mainly about the works of a small collective of artists, including reception, reviews and awards. It seems reasonable to use the notability criteria WP:ARTIST for assessing the notability of the artists work or output. On that basis, it seems clear that notability has been established. I also note this, from the lead of WP:ORG "This guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people)." There are parallels in this case with "co-authors" and "co-inventors", and therefore WP:ORG may not be the most suitable guideline. Would it help if the word "company" in the article title was changed to "collective" ? --Marshelec (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the recent additions since this was put up for deletion, there is now enough referencing of substance that shows notability. Schwede66 20:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the recent additions have included references that meet WP:NCORP. If you think some do, can you link to them here and point to which part of them contains in-depth information about the organization (see WP:CORPDEPTH). HighKing++ 17:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There have been multiple edits, expansions and citations since the article was proposed for deletion. There are now sufficient citations to establish notability.Marshelec (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response The article has certainly been expanded and improved - but we need references that meet WP:NCORP guidelines to establish notability. Sadly none of the additions do that. Just to show why, here's commentary on the first six or seven that were added. This Theatre Review reference was added - it doesn't even mention the topic company. This from Theatre Times is an interview with the founder which arguably contains a single sentence about the company, that is neither nor significant fails CORPDEPTH. This journal also contains no in-depth information on the organisation, fails CORPDEPTH. Then there are four reviews about "The Singularity" that mention the organization in passing, again all fail CORPDEPTH because there is no in-depth information about the organisation. HighKing++ 17:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and rename as a draft article on Martyn Roberts per 4meter4 below Delete This is a theatre organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. We therefore require references that discuss the *organisation* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and also containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, or people involved with the company such as interviews fail ORGIND as do press releases, etc. Reviews of plays produced by the organization also does not meet the criteria as the topic itself must receive in-depth coverage. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 16:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Originally proposed moving and move to afterburner (theatre productions). While I disagree with the above assertion that "theatre organizations" are automatically subject to WP:NCORP – many theatre companies are in fact organised as nonprofits – I do agree that there is insufficient in-depth coverage of the afterburner "arts collective" itself according to even WP:NONPROFIT rules. Nevertheless, there *is* sufficient coverage of the *body of work* produced by afterburner to satisfy WP:GNG, so I think the solution is to rename and reframe the article. (Another possible solution would be to merge this content with a new article on Martyn Roberts, but in this case there is stronger independent SIGCOV of the body of work produced by afterburner, which also involves many other artists.) Sources establishing notability of the body of work per WP:GNG include the William Peterson review of The Telescope in Theatre Journal; reviews of The Singularity in Capital Times, the Dominion Post, and Theatreview itself; and the Theatreview review of Dark Matter. The 2017 NZ Fringe Award for "Best of Fringe" (to afterburner for Dark Matter) is also a major plus for notability. The article has expanded and improved significantly since nomination. Well done to all. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there's any evidence that the company is run as a non-profit and that NCORP doesn't apply, I'll review my !vote above. Your suggestion to rework the article so that the topic is changed to focus on their theatre productions and thereby meet the slightly less strictly-interpreted guidelines of GNG might work although I'm not sure that, as a topic, the "Productions of afterburner" is notable either (or a valid topic). HighKing++ 11:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm not against the idea of a rename and a change of the topic, just to be clear. HighKing++ 19:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing It would be very unusual for a theatre company to be "for-profit". The vast majority of theatre companies are non-profits, and many of them receive government funding of one form or another. Afterburner appears to be the recipient of government grants, which are usually only available to non-profits. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any content to confirm the status, but I think it is likely a non-profit given the award of a government grant.4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep Most sourcing is from publications in the theater field and an gov't arts council. There seems to be enough to put an article together. It's not the best, but it's there. Oaktree b (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's a rather vague response. NCORP requires *each* source to meet all the criteria. So which individual sources are you saying meet NCORP's criteria for notability? HighKing++ 16:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as written for failing WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. The sourcing just isn't here for an article on the company, and I don't think a list of performances/productions by the company as suggested by Cielquiparle would be any better, as the sources are all individual reviews and are not discussed collectively in any sources. Therefore any such article would essentially be original research or synthesis. That said, I do think the content could be draftified and repurposed as an article on Martyn Roberts who would certainly pass criteria 3 and criteria 4 of WP:NARTIST. The company and its work could be covered in that article, and then this page could be redirected to the article on Martyn Roberts. This would seem to be the best policy based solution to the issue at hand.4meter4 (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and rename as a draft article on Martyn Roberts per 4meter4 (essentially resulting in deletion of an article with the name "afterburner" on this topic). From what I've read, I wasn't sure if Martyn Roberts would pass WP:GNG but certainly WP:NARTIST in this case looks like it makes sense. My one question is: What is the best way to make this happen? Could we request the closer to create such a draft, or should someone else create one in parallel? (Just trying to minimize number of steps and avoid losing the work that was done, but also don't want to jump the gun before this discussion is closed.) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should be deleted because there is not enough press coverage of this company and because this company is not well-known. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and possibly merge anything that's relevant to Martyn Roberts. There's very little coverage in independent sources. JMWt (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I initially closed this discussion as a Soft Delete because no one was advocating Keeping this article and later realized that no one was actually arguing for its Deletion either so I restored it to close as No Consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alta Architects

Alta Architects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This business has apparently operated under three names recently: Alta Architects, Muñoz and Company, and Kell Muñoz Architects (I moved it to its current name, but previously the article was at Kell Muñoz Architects). Looking at sources it appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP—most mentions are in passing in articles about either the CEO or a building the firm worked on. There was a past AfD in 2010 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kell Muñoz Architects) which was withdrawn after the page was updated with non-primary sources, but I'm not sure notability is clearly established here.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/14/us/14museum.html Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2009/09/14/daily28.html Yes Yes per RS/N No Primarily about the building, not the firm ✘ No
https://www.mysanantonio.com/business/local/article/Renovations-for-Freeman-Coliseum-626939.php Yes Yes Local news (Hearst owned), no reason to doubt reliability on this topic No Primarily about the building, not the firm ✘ No
https://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/AIA-honors-local-architectural-firms-4005141.php Yes Yes ibid No List of awards winners with no specific coverage of Kell Muñoz ✘ No
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/And-the-AIA-Design-Awards-go-to-2253125.php Yes Yes ibid No Passing mention; note that some other honerees got their own coverage, e.g. [100]) ✘ No
https://www.archpaper.com/2022/06/built-with-a-minimal-budget-lakeflato-architects-san-antonio-federal-courthouse-focuses-on-the-most-affordable-material-of-all-daylight/ Yes Yes Trade publication, seems reliable for this content No Focus is on the primary architecture firm Lake|Flato, with limited mention of Alta ✘ No
"Architect once in dispute is wooed; Kell Munoz is sought for Convention Center," San Antonio Express-News, 6 Oct 2001 ([101]) Yes Yes Yes Mostly covers a building, but also covers past disputes with the city, and focuses on the firm; not free online, and significance is questionable still, but seems to be the closest to a GNG source ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I'm ignoring a few sources which mention the company in passing but are about CEO Henry Muñoz in other contexts (who may be notable himself, based on stuff like [102], [103], [104]). I also excluded a few sources from the article itself which seem to be databases with extremely limited information ([105], [106], [107]). The American Latino Museum page is offline and doesn't appear on the Wayback Machine. Overall, lots of things mention this firm, but not a lot seems to imply the firm itself is significant; they've clearly worked on a few significant buildings, though.

The article itself also reads a bit WP:PROMO, though I don't think WP:TNT would apply here if it's otherwise notable. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Business. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Been around since 1927, I'd expect something to show up, what we have now is a few paragraphs, appears almost to be a copy of a company directory. It doesn't give much more than basic facts about the company. The source table helps, but I'm not ready to pull the plug yet. Oaktree b (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at their about page (primary non-independent source, but I have no reason to doubt the info for research purposes) it seems like they change their name a lot. Names used by the firm listed on that page are "Eickenroht & Cocke," "Bartlett Cocke, Architects," "Bartlett Cocke & Associates," "Bartlett Cocke & Associates, Inc.," "Chumney, Jones & Kell, Inc.," "Jones & Kell, Inc.," "Kell Muñoz Wigodsky, Inc.," "Kell Muñoz Architects, Inc.," "Muñoz & Company, Inc.," and the current name, "Alta Architects."
    I hadn't searched under any of the names prior to "Kell Muñoz" so this is likely a good jumping off point for more sources! I should have a chance to look into it a bit more this weekend; given the number of notable buildings they were involved in, this feels like a firm that is notable, even though I wasn't finding much. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 05:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To make things more confusing (because who doesn't love that) there is a Texas based contracting firm called "Bartlett Cocke," which is still operating under that name today. As far as I can tell they're a fully independent firm that just happened to be founded by the same guy who was a principal at what is now Alta (see [108], primary non-independent source). At any rate, my initial pass at searching under these names didn't really help me much; I found more coverage that was passing mentions in an article about a building (often as a secondary architecture firm). I certainly believe they are a well established company but at the moment it still feels like they fall short of WP:NCORP. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 15:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you have access to the San Antonio Express-News article in full? ProQuest does not appear to have a copy of the article (other than a two sentence abstract which actually might even be the entire amount written....) which is the link provided. HighKing++ 15:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @HighKing I do but it's not freely available. Are you on WP:Discord? I can send you a copy. (It also might be available in full through other ProQuest subscriptions, but it's not on TWL or NYPL's ProQuest access) Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 19:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, I don't need to see it if you can simply verify whether it contains in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. For the most part, I agree that there doesn't appear to be sufficient sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 16:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a recent comment to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Procedural close. Nomination by sockpuppet and no one has voiced support for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dompoase Senior High School

Dompoase Senior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Permotions page doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Wikiindiawikiindia (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC) (sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 19:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 05:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Party of Kazakhstan

Pirate Party of Kazakhstan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doubtful that this political party is actually notable in any way. The only reference is to their own website and it reads like a campaign/advert. Styx & Bones (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete absolutely no sources for this article that are not connected to the party itself. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Rename. I've never closed an AFD with a Rename closure but that seems to be the consensus. I will be renaming it as Murder of Ebrahim Buzhu as that is how his name is spelled in the article. If you disagree, please take it up on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ebrahim Buzhu

Ebrahim Buzhu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extent of notability unclear, seems to stem from his association with Ridouan Taghi. Most of the sources cover his murder, and the language used doesn't hint at much notability. French article seems to be in better shape. Mooonswimmer 16:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. Endorse Gidonb's solution (I've corrected the spelling of "assassination" in his red link.) Jahaza (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! gidonb (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I fixed that in my proposal! gidonb (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam France

Adam France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD [109]. Appears to fail WP:NBIO/CREATIVE. KH-1 (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. KH-1 (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local tattoo artists are a dime a dozen. This one doesn't appear to have done anything out of the ordinary. Nothing in Gnews. Sources given in the article are mentions or confirmation of the work he does. Oaktree b (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article has all the signs of connected contributor(s), including the artist themself - WP:COI. Aside from that, the subject does not meet WP criteria for inclusion based on notability guidelines. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. The current sourcing is poor, consisting of user-submitted content, a couple dead link 404s, a link to a video poker site, and things like a calendar listing that does not mention him at all or blog-like sites that do not mention him at all. An online search reveals social media but no in-depth coverage. The article seems like it may be WP:ADMASQ based on the tone. Netherzone (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ROTM tattoo artist who fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stan London

Stan London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was tagged for notability in 2020. As I am looking for sources, I am finding that every major professional team has/had physicians on staff, there are some surgeons that have drawn national attention. There are obituaries for London including a memorial or testimonial from his employer https://www.stlshof.com/dr-stan-london/ Beyond the entry being a memorial "WP:MEMORIAL" or WP is not a memorial; there is no indicator, to me as a matter of opinion, that the subject is notable in any way. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obituaries written by family members or friends would constitute as a primary source. In this case, the source is written by a reporter and published in the sport section of the publication, something that is normaly reserved for individuals that gained some notability through their career, so it is a secondary source that is independent of the subject. While the upi.com source does mention him, it only does so briefly and thus shouldn't be considered a significant source. Alvaldi (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after digging around on Newspapers.com, I found several sources that establish that he has the significant coverage dating from the 1940's from both his athletic and medical career to pass WP:GNG, including [110][111][112][113][114][115]. Alvaldi (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.. for your insight; and updating the article. I am going to close the deletion. Flibbertigibbets (talk)
13:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Silang, Cavite#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cavite Institute

Cavite Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Zero hits on Google News. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 00:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casa Del Niño Schools System

Casa Del Niño Schools System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calamba Institute

Calamba Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agnus Dei School Systems, Inc.

Agnus Dei School Systems, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail; zero hits on Google News and Google Books. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. James Academy (Malabon)

St. James Academy (Malabon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inside the Revolution: A Journey into the Heart of Venezuela

AfDs for this article:
Inside the Revolution: A Journey into the Heart of Venezuela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NFOE, the content does not show that the film was widely distributed or screened at cinemas.

It has had an issue relying on primary sources for over ten years, and on 2009 a deletion discussion had already decided on its deletion, partly due to the same reason. After all this time, there aren't independent sources that demonstrate its notability. NoonIcarus (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Politics, and Venezuela. NoonIcarus (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think NFOE is more an indicator than a hard rule—a film that wasn't screened widely might still be notable. That said, I'm not finding anything in a cursory search for anything that meets basic reliable independent coverage; blogs ([116]), screening announcements ([117], [118]), the film itself (it's on Youtube and Vimeo, I watched a bit), and some stuff (like this, which might just be a catalogue entry [119]). The film might also be discussed under its Spanish title, which appears to be Desde Dentro: Un viaje al corazón de la revolución venezolana (per [120]) but even with that, I found nothing in books or newspapers. My library subscriptions are probably a bit US-centric, I'd love for someone with access to Venezuelan newspapers to take a look, but it seems to not pass notability. As a procedural note, the earlier AfD found consensus to delete, but with encouragement to bring it back once it met WP:NF; the recreation of it shortly thereafter might have been a G4-issue at the time, but given this was all in 2009, I think it's worth re-assessing. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 05:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On 25 August 2009, a warning related to speedy deletion was placed in the author's talk page for the same reason, although I'm not sure if the article was tagged at the moment.
I've looked into the main Venezuelan newspapers (WP:VENRS) with the Spanish title, without finding any results. The only independent source that I can find in Spanish is a passing mention in a review of the director of South of the Border ([121]). This should demonstrate that the article fails WP:GNG. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, page logs show it was deleted a second time under G4 on 25 August 2009, and then the current page was moved from the author's userspace on 17 November 2009. IDK if there were substantial differences between the November and August versions of the page, and I don't know how I feel about claiming G4 still applies on a 13 year old page, but it sure is a bit funny. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 16:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete What's used for sourcing in the article is about what there is for sourcing, and it's not much. Blogs and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's this in Jstor [122]. A review I guess. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per sources identified and assumed to exist Star Mississippi 17:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artois Hound

Artois Hound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Only 1 ref on the entire article so it's full of OR, the WP refs search only brings up 4 results, all for books on how to care for the dog, and pretty much anything past the 2nd page of a normal google search is just dog merch. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 00:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and France. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 00:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I find are links for Stella Artois, the beer. Nothing about this kind of dog. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment still looking for sources but for anyone else doing the same, seems like the French name ("chien d’artois") is also commonly used for this breed in English. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 05:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It isn't true that the article only has one reference; it also gives as general references two book sources, which are both available to view at the Internet Archive: [123], [124]. The Arthus-Bertrand source isn't available online, but I'm willing to assume good faith on that one. These three sources alone are enough to satisfy GNG. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 10:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also: the article has an in-text reference to Manuel de Vénerie Française, which I believe to be available here, but I don't read French so I can't be sure that link verifies the information in the article. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sojourner in the earth's sources and this lengthy article in an 1872 edition of The Oriental Sporting Magazine. The breed was clearly once much more well known than it is now. Dog encyclopaedias tend to give it only short entries now (eg [125]) because it is all but extinct. But once notable, always notable is policy whereas "not recognised by the Kennel Club" is not. SpinningSpark 18:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great Raft Brewing

Great Raft Brewing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. All coverage is local and primarily routine announcements so fails WP:AUD and WP:CORPDEPTH. No in-depth NCORP-compliant coverage located on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Categories
Table of Contents